Doc Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I'm stumped as to what this response has to do with Tom Brady. Give me a little time, I'll figure it out. Anyway, this is the law in Fla: A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. You may recall that only one individual in this fracas is accused of threatening the lives of others. As to the bolded, that's where it would seem to fall apart for Kromer, unless he is going to claim they were wielding their fishing poles in a life threatening manner. I did enjoy the lawyer's "if 51% of the evidence" quote though. He can say it was 3 against 1, someone threatened to kill him or raised his fist, and he didn't know if they had weapons because it was dark. Again, he can make any claim because there's no video and it's his word against theirs.
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I'm stumped as to what this response has to do with Tom Brady. Give me a little time, I'll figure it out. Anyway, this is the law in Fla: A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. You may recall that only one individual in this fracas is accused of threatening the lives of others. Nice. Nothing proves you don't know what you're talking about than quoting the wrong statute.
BillsfaninMyrtleBeach Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 It's not like it was a young kid he smacked, the "kid" was like 6ft. 300lbs.!!!
Saint Doug Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 As to the bolded, that's where it would seem to fall apart for Kromer, unless he is going to claim they were wielding their fishing poles in a life threatening manner. What about wielding their fists? I haven't read through the whole thread, so let's assume these "kids" fishing at the time of the incident weren't exactly 12 and 13 year-old. With that said, I'm a grown adult and I believe there are many 16 and 17 year-olds out there that can straight-out kick my ass. That's something I would likely have in the front of my mind that late at night, especially in Florida.
Steve Billieve Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 It's not like it was a young kid he smacked, the "kid" was like 6ft. 300lbs.!!! Read that he weighs 140 and was under 6 feet.
What a Tuel Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) You're joking, right? You think their lawyers are going to let them speak to his employer about the details of that evening? You don't think the state's attorney would be interested in the exact contents of that discussion? The only ones who have made decisions are the Pegulas--who chose not to wait until the legal system ran its course before they made him leave the property. No I am not. Kromer is very likely more concerned with his job than the court system right now. He very likely isn't going to jail, and losing his job means losing a large amount of money. 776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.— (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. History.—s. PERMISSIBLE USES OF NON-DEADLY FORCEIn Florida, “Defense of Property” is a subcategory of “justifiable use of non-deadly force.” It arises where a person resorts to a violent or forcible act to protect or preserve rights in real or personal property. If successfully raised at trial in Florida, Defense of Property operates as a complete defense and a bar to criminal liability. Florida law provides that a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force against another person for the defense of property if the following three facts are proven: The other person was trespassing or otherwise wrongfully interfering with land (real property) or personal property; The land or personal property was lawfully in the defendant’s possession, or in the possession of his or her immediate family or household, or in the possession of some person whose property the defendant was under a legal duty to protect; and The defendant reasonably believed that his or her use of force was necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s wrongful behavior. If you have been charged with a criminal offense involving a violent act, such as battery, assault, domestic violence, aggravated battery, or aggravated assault, and believe that you were acting in defense of property, contact our Jacksonville criminal defense attorneys to discuss your case. You may have legal defenses to contest the charge, obtain a dismissal, or minimize potential penalties. Legal experts, Why doesn't this apply here? Were the chairs not on his property? Edited July 19, 2015 by What a Tuel
vincec Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I wonder if Kromer is a good enough OL coach to justify all of these contortions being made by fans to defend him. He hasn't proven anything in Buffalo yet and he was not good in Chicago, his last stop,
Doc Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I wonder if Kromer is a good enough OL coach to justify all of these contortions being made by fans to defend him. He hasn't proven anything in Buffalo yet and he was not good in Chicago, his last stop, He was the OC in Chicago. And despite what happened in Chicago, the Bills' OL players seem to like him/his approach. And I did a search of posts here around the time Kromer made his comments. Suffice it to say that none of his most ardent critics now made a peep about him then, even though many of them commented in threads about the Bears' general situation.
FireChan Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 He was the OC in Chicago. And despite what happened in Chicago, the Bills' OL players seem to like him/his approach. And I did a search of posts here around the time Kromer made his comments. Suffice it to say that none of his most ardent critics now made a peep about him then, even though many of them commented in threads about the Bears' general situation. I did. I said it was a scumbag move and I didn't think he'd get another job in the NFL.
Augie Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 It's not like it was a young kid he smacked, the "kid" was like 6ft. 300lbs.!!! I think that might have been the total for all three of them, stacked up on top of each other. I could be wrong.
3rdand12 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) What else is he going to say? Provoked? Would anyone believe this little kid took the first swing? now he is a little Kid? perspective my friend. if they are fishing, surely they had fishing knives to cut bait? perhaps one of the little tykes was scaling his catch and turned upon Kromers approach with something in his hand. Hmm? I wonder if Kromer is a good enough OL coach to justify all of these contortions being made by fans to defend him. He hasn't proven anything in Buffalo yet and he was not good in Chicago, his last stop, I sure hope that is the very last way we as fans qualify him in this situation. how good a coach he is. Edited July 19, 2015 by 3rdand12
Doc Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) I did. I said it was a scumbag move and I didn't think he'd get another job in the NFL.At the time of the incident, you talked about Cutler and Trestman, but said nothing about Kromer. It was only after the Bills hired him that you called him out. And looking back at that thread, I was reminded that Kromer admitted to talking about Cutler refusing to check out of running plays, but he denied the "buyer's remorse" comment, which must have come from above. Meaning he wasn't the only one talking about Cutler behind his back, but he took the fall for it. Edited July 19, 2015 by Doc
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Legal experts, Why doesn't this apply here? Were the chairs not on his property? Chairs left on private right of way to public beach, being used on beach when encounter took place
FireChan Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) At the time of the incident, you talked about Cutler and Trestman, but said nothing about Kromer. It was only after the Bills hired him that you called him out. And looking back at that thread, I was reminded that Kromer admitted to talking about Cutler refusing to check out of running plays, but he denied the "buyer's remorse" comment, which must have come from above. Meaning he wasn't the only one talking about Cutler behind his back, but he took the fall for it. That's speculation. For all you know, he denied those comments because he didn't want to be backstabbing his QB and saying that his organization screwed up. I'd assume GM's and executives don't like to be called out by glorified O-line coaches. Can I have a link to the thread? I admit I don't really recall what I exactly said, but I'm pretty sure my sentiment was that Kromer was in the wrong. Edited July 20, 2015 by FireChan
Doc Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 That's speculation. For all you know, he denied those comments because he didn't want to be backstabbing his QB and saying that his organization screwed up. I'd assume GM's and executives don't like to be called out by glorified O-line coaches. Can I have a link to the thread? I admit I don't really recall what I exactly said, but I'm pretty sure my sentiment was that Kromer was in the wrong. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/175510-aaron-kromer-o-line-coach/?hl=kromer As for the buyer's remorse comment, sure someone higher up said it. Kromer might have relayed it to Rapoport, but he didn't come up with it himself since he's not the franchise.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/175510-aaron-kromer-o-line-coach/?hl=kromer As for the buyer's remorse comment, sure someone higher up said it. Kromer might have relayed it to Rapoport, but he didn't come up with it himself since he's not the franchise. As far as I know Kromer always denied the buyer's remorse quote but fessed up for being the source of saying that Cutler had problems checking out of running plays, which hurt their offense. And that quote is what he apologized to Cutler and the team for, not the buyer's remorse quote.
TheFunPolice Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 The bottom line is that if you are a high profile professional working in a league like the NFL there is absolutely no justifiable scenario in which you are involved in a late night physical altercation with minors over a couple of beach chairs. If nothing else, protect yourself from being preyed upon by people who want to sue you for the money they know you have and protect your career from negative PR.
eball Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 The bottom line is that if you are a high profile professional working in a league like the NFL there is absolutely no justifiable scenario in which you are involved in a late night physical altercation with minors over a couple of beach chairs. If nothing else, protect yourself from being preyed upon by people who want to sue you for the money they know you have and protect your career from negative PR. I don't know a lot about this incident, but one thing I think I'm pretty sure of is that Kromer didn't go out to the beach that night intending to get into a physical altercation. Your premise is logical and reasonable, but, as they say, schitt happens. Whatever the "schitt" was in this instance, it put Kromer over the edge.
BarleyNY Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Wow. This thread has gone Full Retard. Now we have posters citing Stand Your Ground laws and assuming the kids were delinquents fishing in hopes they could stab some passerby with their fishing knives. Over moving some beach chairs. Or Grand Theft Beach Chair, depending on the poster. Some people on this thread need some real psychiatric help.
NoSaint Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Wow. This thread has gone Full Retard. Now we have posters citing Stand Your Ground laws and assuming the kids were delinquents fishing in hopes they could stab some passerby with their fishing knives. Over moving some beach chairs. Or Grand Theft Beach Chair, depending on the poster. Some people on this thread need some real psychiatric help. i dont think anyone argued that the kids were out there hoping to stab someone, but making the point that they could have easily had something in their hands such as a knife for fishing. while i dont think they were holding a knife, the point that we have no idea how it escalated seems to be pretty darn fair.
Recommended Posts